Evidence for String Theory?

Izeickl writes "PhysOrg.com is reporting that scientists working at a neutrino detector nicknamed AMANDA at the South Pole report that evidence for string theory may soon be coming. Extra dimensions predicted by string theory may affect observed numbers of certain neutrinos and this is what the scientists will be looking for. The article further states 'No more than a dozen high-energy neutrinos have been detected so far. However, the current detection rate and energy range indicate that AMANDA's larger successor, called IceCube, now under construction, could provide the first evidence for string theory and other theories that attempt to build upon our current understanding of the universe.'"

Comments

well is it

[lubricated]

so will string theory finally be falsifiable and be more than a religion?

Re:well is it

[lisaparratt]

Just because you don't know how to falsify it doesn't mean it's not falsifiable. Religion is by definition not falsifiable.

That's the big, important, difference.

Re:well is it

[Dashing Leech]

"If nobody has any idea on how to even begin to falsify it, what's the difference?"

It's a huge difference. But beyond that, if a theory/model makes predictions about how the universe works, and it is impossible to ever prove it wrong (falsifiable), by definition you've just demonstrated that it is a perfect model of the universe. That is, after all, the goal of the Theory of Everything, to have a model that explains and can predict everything.

Religion is not falsifiable because it makes no predictions about the interactions of reality that can be checked. (This is arguable, however, depending on the belief of the religion. For example, faith-healers are falsifiable and have been demonstrated to be false. Really we're talking about the existence of God, not religion as a whole.)

String/M- theory is a mathematical construct that makes predictions about reality. That we don't have the technology to check them yet, and that all of the predictions haven't been derived yet, is different from being non-falsifiable. In fact, one can argue that it already has. It predicts the existence of gravity, and our observations match the prediction. If they didn't, it would be false, hence it's falsifiable.

Put yet another way, if string/M- theory is not falsifiable then it is not making any predictions about reality and hence it is useless as a model to tell us anything. That's hardly the case.

Re:well is it

[Scarblac]

It's a huge difference. But beyond that, if a theory/model makes predictions about how the universe works, and it is impossible to ever prove it wrong (falsifiable), by definition you've just demonstrated that it is a perfect model of the universe. That is, after all, the goal of the Theory of Everything, to have a model that explains and can predict everything.

No, if it is impossible to test any of its predictions, then it doesn't actually predict anything at all, and it's perfectly useless. With your "perfect model", it'd have lots of testable predictions, and the tests would all confirm the model if they were carried out.

String/M- theory is a mathematical construct that makes predictions about reality.

No, right now it's just a mathematical construct.

That we don't have the technology to check them yet, and that all of the predictions haven't been derived yet, is different from being non-falsifiable. In fact, one can argue that it already has. It predicts the existence of gravity, and our observations match the prediction. If they didn't, it would be false, hence it's falsifiable.

Except that we already knew that; basically it was a given for the mathematical construct. It's not a actual prediction. Consider how some of Einstein's predictions based on his theories were only finally confirmed a few years back; that's the sort of thing we're looking for.

If this story means that there is finally something in string theory that we can actually check, that it predicts that the number of neutrinos or whatever is different from what we'd expect with normal theory... then that's something we can test, and it would immediately be a falsifiable theory. But as far as I know, that would be the first time string theory "connects to reality", if it's true.

Put yet another way, if string/M- theory is not falsifiable then it is not making any predictions about reality and hence it is useless as a model to tell us anything. That's hardly the case.

That is, in fact, exactly the case. Hopefully that'll change some day.

Who needs evidence?

[ScentCone]

"Strings" are just another way of describing devine, Noodly Appendages.

Actually, this is really cool. Looking forward to what the use of the new detector shows, or doesn't, as the case may be. String theory is such a mind bender for most people (including me), that anything making it more directly tangible will really help focus the conversation. Or end it. Either way is good.

That's nice, but. . .

[petra13]

It's cool that there's a testable prediction coming out of string theory, but I would take this with a grain of salt for the next few decades. For one thing, I don't think neutrinos themselves are well enough understood yet that string theory would provide the only (or even the best) possible explanation for discrepencies in their 'up' and 'down' neutrino rates. A multitude of experiments are being done now just to try to pin down the parameters governing neutrnio behavior. So if AMANDA sees the discrepency predicted by string theory, it would take a lot more work and many more years to demonstrate that there isn't a better explanation for it.

Re:That's nice, but. . .

[fermion]

Generaly speaking, if a hypothesis makes a prediction, and the predition turns out to be true, then the hypothesis is reasonable at least for the domaain probed by that experiment, and represent at least a small part of reality.

We can take three cases. First, the flat earth. On a small scale, the earth seems flat, and in every day life we treat it so. The success of this theory is shown by out upstanding building and bridges. The problem occurs when we try to assume that local flatness is universal.

Second, Newtons law of motion. For slow speeds, they seem to be correct. We can make all sorts of predictions, and have those predictions experiemental proven true. Again the problem occurs when we assume the laws are valid at all speeds.

Third, we have the theory that all waves require a medium, and therefore, lights as waves require a medium. This is multi layer difficulty. We assumed an aether to fullfill an unverified assumption of the nature 'all swans I have seen are white, therefore all swans are white'. We also made the then reasonable assumption that things are either waves or massive It is now clear that niether of these are universaly true, but both were useful constructs.

So, the issue is not that there is a better explaination, as science does not make judgements, it just finds models for observations. The issue is whether they hypothesis can be used to create a theory that can be used to usefully predict behavior.

Re:wake me when this matters to us 3d people

[csirac]

Will it stop the onward march of socialism?

I'm confused by this one. There's an onward march of socialism? I thought it fascism ;)

Re:Falsifiable

[Lifewish]

If you find internal consistency (within the dogma of a religion, including their trusted documents) and external consistency with the outer (earth/cosmos) and inner (conscience/mind) world, then you can start taking it seriously.

Thanks for validating my acceptance of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. May you always be touched by His Noodly Appendage!

No seriously. The filter you propose wouldn't even catch the travesty that was epicycles. There's a reason why Occam's razor is such an integral part of scientific philosophy.

[/flamebait]

Re:String Theroy.

[Anonymous Coward]

It could lead to things like replacators for anything.. If everything is made out of the same dozen high-energy neutrinos. Then to make anything one would only need to munipulate those 12 neutrinos to make anything imaginable.

You're confused. This neutrino experiment won't imply that everything is made out of neutrinos. If string theory is correct, then everything (including neutrinos) is made out of strings, but that doesn't make replicators feasible. To make a replicator we would "only" need to manipulate protons, neutrons, and electrons, even without string theory; there is no need for those particles to all be the same thing. (We can transmute elements using nuclear physics, too, again without string theory, but this is not practical, and turning quarks into electrons using string theory is not only less useful, but is basically impossible using any conceivable future technology).

predictions, evidence, and testing hypotheses

[penguin-collective]

A correct prediction is not necessarily evidence for a theory; the prediction might be a tautology or it might be true of many other theories as well.

For example, my hypothesis might be that Donald Trump's social security number is 666-66-6666. Now, I conduct an experiment in which I test the prediction that his social security number is not 123-45-6789 and the experiment succeeds. I have gotten a tiny bit of evidence for my original hypothesis, but it's so small as to be negligible.

Well, with scientific theories, it's even worse because there are not just 1 billion of them but an infinite number--unless you do things exactly right, a successful prediction gives you no evidence for a scientific theory at all.

Higher Dimensions

[Cyno]

Why is it so hard for people to believe in the possibility of higher dimensions?

Is it fear of the unknown or change?

Is it a disbelief that 3D space bends or a rationalization for this bending to somehow be within our 3 physical dimensions?

Is it that higher dimensions opens up the possibility for the existence of God(s), yet at the same time disproves almost all preexisting legends and disrupts and subverts tradition and religions that would rather maintain authority and control?

Is it just too far fetched for you to consider possible? The Sun is too far fetched for me to consider possible. Same goes for that giant black hole at the center of our galaxy.

But if higher dimensions do exist and we can learn how to use them... well... maybe we aren't ready for this knowledge at this time. Maybe we have a lot of other psychelogical and social problems to solve before we should be allowed to manipulate gravity. Perhaps the Department of Homeland Security should outlaw all higher dimensional research for our own security...